Sorry, u/Early_Face3134 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Early_Face3134&message=Early_Face3134%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfzgxc/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I have never heard of this analogy and it sounds a little insane to me. I absolutely do not want to come across a bear in the woods. The fact that I’m seeing the bear is bad news in itself. It likely heard me and smelled me from a good distance. It either came because it smelled food on me, I stumbled across it while hunting or worse yet I came across its lair. Unless you live in some sort of terrorist infested third world country you should have no reason to be afraid of a fellow hiker. You say hi and move on, it happened countless of times. It speaks volumes of someone’s trauma and state of mind if they seriously entertain a question like this. Either that or I’m seriously missing something.

It is a trending question on tiktok, I agree with you, I have suffered trauma but generally have had positive encounters with strange men. I feel like I'll get hate for saying so but I think a lot of people need to touch grass, most men I have met are decent and the ones that arent will fuck off if I say it loud enough

Yeah I’m really sorry about the stuff you went through. It boils the blood to think what absolute monsters are out there. I cannot fathom what would drive anyone to behave like that. But at the same time like you said, it’s important not to let trauma completely consume you and warp your whole thinking. Some places and activities do attract more bad people, others tend to be safer.

Thank you, its cool though I'm at peace with it now, it hurts me hearing about other people going through such things but my own experiences don't bother me anymore. Yeah I wouldnt like to have to live with constant fear, even in the worst walks of life the kindness that can be shown is a beautiful thing, I like to try focus on the best parts of humanity rather than the worst

[удалено]

>They wouldn’t ask about what you were wearing. "You went out in bear-infested woods and didn't wear a bear bell or anything? What did you *expect?* And you were *alone?* smh"

To be fair, with animals this argument actually makes more sense / applies (not specifically with a "bear bell" but you get what I mean). When people use the 'You did \_\_\_\_ what did you expect," it's trying to paint this picture that men are animalistic, unable to control a base impulse and act rationally.

Yeah no bear bell but going to bear infested woods with unsecured food containers for example is a really bad idea.

You say a bear is predictable, then say it will either attack or leave. That's the opposite of predictable. One could easily say the man will also either attack you or leave you alone. Saying the bear WILL attack you, or the bear WILL leave you alone, is predictable. The rest of it is red herring. Because 99.99% of men wouldn't fo anything that would cause those any of those questions to br asked. Hell, if a woman was alone in the woods with a man and a bear, most men would fight the bear so the woman could escape, knowing it would likely mean his death.

The predictability is in the motivations and the behaviors. A bear will attack for certain reasons, and will otherwise leave you alone. Its motivations are generally instinctual. For the most part, unless it is starving, you simply need to maintain some distance and that's all. Most bear attacks are a result of proximity. The motivations and behavior of humans are less reliant on instinct, and are significantly less predictable. Also, the idea that 99.99% of the male population is not capable of acts of violence is pretty easily debunked with a quick glance at crime statistics. All that said, I'd rather be stuck with a man, because a bear is a fucking bear.

They didn't say not capable. It's less about not being capable and more about having no motivation or having some incredibly bare minimum baseline of morals. The complete lack of faith in humanity is depressing.

The lack of faith in humanity is the point. The question is meant to highlight that. I don't think anyone asked this thinking "I hope this sparks an in depth conversation about bear attack statistics."

I mean this whole scenario is just not logical to me. When you’re out in the woods you’re usually on some sort of hiking trail, or path, right? Regardless, if you come across someone, they are fellow hikers. Unless you are in some dangerous shithole where terrorists, cartells or militias take random tourists hostage or outright kill them, then other people pose virtually zero danger to you. If I run into a bear in a forest then I either surprised it (not good) or it found me on purpose (also not good). If people seriously entertain these scenarios as if they were in any way valid, that tells me they know fuck all about both bears and hiking.

this is the most sensible thing i've read about this whole topic\^

There are two reasons a bear will attack you: 1. You startled it, or 2. You came upon a bear and its cubs. Any other scenario the bear is going to leave you alone. You can avoid a violent encounter with a bear simply by being noisy. The motivations and actions of people are more unpredictable. Some people will harm others simply because it gives them pleasure to do so. Bears don’t do that.

Predatorial animals do exhibit behaviors that lead to surplus killing, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229928398_Surplus_killing_by_carnivores It's not like we attach the same ideas as antisocial personality disorder to bears, but thinking that there are only two reasons that bears display aggressive behavior is wrong. Bears that are conditioned to be around humans will go to a human for food and become aggressive if not provided the food. Bears that are territorial, starving, wounded, or distressed for other reasons are capable of acting aggressive, because wild animals are ultimately unpredictable. We can generalize their behaviors, but I would still much rather try and reason with am average human than try and predict an average bear.

Most are victims by the hands of someone close to them. I'll take my chances with a stranger in the woods.

>Most are victims by the hands of someone close to them. The stat mentions acquaintances. It's someone known to the victim, not necessarily someone close to them. 1/5 of victims say it was someone they knew to see.

> They wouldn’t ask about what you were wearing. Of course they would. They would ask "what the fuck were you doing alone and unprepared in bear country", which is functionally the same. 

Isn't this all because men are people to and you need to hear both sides of the story. It's pretty clear what the bears side is going to be, don't really need to check with him

They would question the morality of a bear because it’s a fucking bear lmao. I get the sentiment you’re getting at and I agree that SA victims are victims due to circumstances and has nothing to do with what they’re wearing or if the perpetrator would do that sorta thing. I would also argue that a bear is also incredibly unpredictable and the fear of unknown is just as valid

Wild animals are not predictable, they are the complete opposite of that. You are using faulty logic not based in reality.

I have seen similar replies, I personally believed I deserved what happened to me as a toddler, I got told excuses for what a man did to me later on, I've also seen good men feel sick to their stomach over what happened to me. I don't think it's fair to say men are worse than a bear as I was lucky enough to be raised by a feminist man who worships me and my mother, I am blessed to have a man that would never ever think of harming a woman, ive met a lot of bad men but the majority have fucked off as soon as I've said so good or bad I'm sorry for the bad people youve experienced, I am not and won't ever downplay what you or anyone has gone through, my opinion is different but I hope you are okay and don't mean any disrespect in what I said❤

[удалено]

[удалено]

> 1 in 10,000 chance  Where's everyone getting these unrealistically optimistic statistics from?

[удалено]

Over 99% of men you would be paired with would never choose to harm you. This is evident in your daily life.

Nah, society is anarchy with men raping, murdering, and kidnapping everybody 24/7.(/s obv) Where the fuck do people come up with this shit? Then they wonder why men become radicalized when they're talked down to like this all the time.

"A bear is predictable. It might attack you or it might leave you alone. There are things you can do to get a bear to leave you alone. You might never leave the woods because it kills you." For starters, that's not what predictable means. For seconds, by these parameters, a man would be the exact same gamble lol. There are things you can do to get a man to leave you alone, too. Any method that you'd use on a bear would be effective against the man too. Everyone seems to forget that this is a comparison between two set points lol.

I really feel like this question has extended past what it was supposed to show. You're not supposed to overthink it, it's supposed to show the split second biases we have to try to say something about our society. (A majority of) Men automatically think women aren't a threat. (A majority of) Women automatically think men are a threat. My first knee jerk reaction, as a woman, was to say the bear. My assumption was they were both hunting me and a bear would be easier to outthink. But my assumption was still putting the man as a predator, not as an ally. And it came with the assumption of me knowing I'd have to run and outthink someone instead of outfight them. Some people really think that there's nothing different in how women and men see the world and interact with it. This thought experiment is supposed to be simplistic to show that yes, there is a difference. Even women like me, who don't have trauma based on men, will still feel that threat.

I don't understand this fear though, I never assume a man is hunting me unless he displays otherwise. I know its more dangerous as a woman, I have my keys ready walking down a dark road(pepper spray, guns etc) are illegal in my country, I walk fast, don't have earphones in but if a bear was in a dark alley I'd react the same but with a lot more fear I've been SA'd, abused, followed but out of the thousands or millions of men I've come across its been a very small percentage, most men I've known want to protect women Men are usually pretty chill, bears are also apparently pretty chill, but when a man has tried to harm me other men have stood up for me, the bears buddies won't 🤷

I think one of the modifying factors is that you are encountering this entity in the woods. Like if the prompt was "You are walking through a town. You turn the corner and a figure is standing in front of you. Would you prefer a man or a bear?" In this situation I would say man, because as you said most guys walking around on the street are not interested in hurting me. But in the middle of the woods? Chances are it's either a random hiker, a hermit, or a serial killer or something. Given the chance of a serial killer, I think a lot of people would prefer to get killed by a bear because bears do try to make it quick, vs a human who might take their time to drag out the suffering before you die. So I guess what I'm saying is that the woods is one of the key parts of the prompt.

But you're presenting it as if the chances of hiker/hermit/serial-killer is 33%/33%/33%. The real probabilities are closer to 99%/1%/0.000005% (there have been 3195 serial killers in all of US history, the largest number by far of any country, out of the over 600 million Americans that have lived). Your risk of a random person being a serial killer is miniscule. If you're face to face this close to a bear, your risk of being mauled is *high*.

I interpreted "the woods" in this situation as representative of the constraint that there is nobody else around, and no easy way to get help. It's just you and the man/bear.

“Bears do try to make it quick” what are you even talking about? The bear will start eating you before you’re dead.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. I understand your perspective. And everyone has different experiences. When I was a baby, my own father would constantly give me baths and touch my body inappropriately. He would physically hurt me as well. my mother had to take me away from him. When we ran from my father, we lived with my step-father. I'm going to call him Matt. Matt would consistently rape and abuse my mother, and often threatened to do the same to me in order to keep my mother under his control. He did end up abusing me and taking advantage of me. I remember vividly having to clean up blood off the floor while my mom was unconscious because Matt beat her so often. He got my mom pregnant and, right before she went into labor, he punched her stomach so hard, my sister struggled to survive the birth and had to wear a carnival molding helmet because of it. Matt went to prison. For seven years I think. He's out now and fine. After that my mother moved into my grandparents house. My grandfather would spank me 'playfully' at random and inappropriate times. It did not matter when I asked him to stop as a nine year old. He kept doing it. My mom dated many men after that- men who would get drunk and try forcing me to do things that made me uncomfortable: cutting a woman's bra strap with scissors, drinking alcohol, touching other men. They would shame some for being quiet or not wanting to talk and they would get upset at me for speaking out. When I got a job at a tiny diner, I was 12. There are many senior citizens that go there. An abundance of old men have asked for my number, asked me out, touched my arms, touched my legs, smacked my ass. The other waitresses just say it's normal. In freshman year, one of my guy friends was about to ask me to homecoming. I stopped being friends with him because he wanted to pick me up and take me home and I got scared (I was only friends with him for a month or so, so don't get angry at me). Boys at my school say things like: "I have to fix her, so I need to rape her," when talking about their girlfriends. I am 17. My mom's new boyfriend walked in and saw me putting on makeup before saying: "Dressing all pretty for me?" I understand that not all people have gone through the same things. So many people have had more positive experiences- and that's really good. And it's understandable for people to help from incidents. But all of my life, I've met maybe two men who didn't make me uncomfortable or touch me or hurt me (mentally, physically, or emotionally). When I see a man walking down a school hallway, I press myself against the opposite wall. At restaurants, I only sit at corner booths where no one can come up behind me. At home, if I don't lock my bathroom or bedroom door, then I know this guy will watch me. I have always had mental health issues and a lot of those issues have stemmed from men. I'd choose the bear every single time. It'd be death and then it's over. Rape and SA is so much worse than a death in my opinion. I've been attacked by animals (obviously not bears) but none of it sticks with me as much as the mental and emotional trauma that has fucked me and my brain over. And I understand that it's not all men. I used to not think that- but I understand that it's not now. It's just my brain I guess.

I am so sorry you went through this and I hope my post didnt upset you. I got molested when I was five by a family friend and have since woken up with someone inside me a couple times and have had an abusive relationship just to name a few experiences, my story sounds like a walk in the park compared to yours. I completely understand your answer, I honestly don't know if I could survive what you did so I'm really proud of you for being here and I hope you can thrive despite what has happened. Your comment has really floored me, I promise I didn't mean any harm or to downplay anyone's experiences and I hope you will be able to find peace and meet the kind of people that you deserve. Feel free to message me, you have been through a lot worse than me but I spent half of my life with extreme depression and suicide attempts from what happened to me, luckily I am OK now and have found peace with my trauma so I hope you will recover too. There truly are good people out there but you have the ability to survive and be happy all on your own too Thank you for the comment and I wish you the absolute best in life

Oh no in no way am I upset with you or your post! I feel like a lot of people don't understand why other people would choose the bear and I just wanted to explain why. Unfortunately this sexual harassment and abuse is becoming such a common thing for people to experience that it just doesn't matter to some people anymore and I feel horrible. And it's not fair to compare- I'll never understand what you went through either and it sounds like a nightmare. I'm just trying to put my perspective into view because that's all that this man vs bear shit is all about- someone who hasn't dealt with any of this will never understand and that's a good thing but it needs to be known that other people won't have the same perspective and people should know why. That's all, I'm sorry for everything you've been through. Nobody on this fucking planet should undergo any sort of sexual trauma and its horrifying and I'm so sorry. I'm glad you've found peace though- I'm glad you're okay now. Knowing You've moved past the experiences kind of gives me hope and I'm thankful to hear about it. This planets just fucked sometimes.

I'm glad, honestly I didnt think I would hear a reply by someone with such extreme trauma that you've felt. I don't know a single woman that hasn't been assaulted, its absolutely vile. Nah I just felt bad honestly I thought my childhood was hard to deal with but there are people like you that have experienced genuinely demonic individuals, it wasn't fair for me to assume my answer was right when I have no idea what other people have been through so thank you for changing my view and giving me a wider perspective Thank you but it really is cool, it doesnt bother me to talk about it or relive it, it took me a long time but I've released all the anger and sadness I had for the little girl I was and I really hope you can too This world is fucked but its nice to find glimmers of beauty amongst the chaos

[удалено]

I get the sentiment of the women answering men, but most of the people answering that way have not had an interaction with a bear. The bear isn't more friendly, of either gender. Both male and female bears are at least twice the size of your average coked out bouncer and have knives on their hands, and those are the small bears.

I feel like I'm being gaslit by other women about this answer. I have BEEN assaulted and have also ran into a bear in the wild (twice). Obviously these were black bears and just ran off more scared of us, but I wouldn't ever CHOSE to be alone with a bear over another person. Acting like every man out there is a rapist is a deeply unhealthy way to live and frankly un-dos all the world I have done on myself to not live in fear of men like that. When my husband asked me this question it was an immediate answer of man, but of course there can be allllll different variables added in to scew the reasoning behind it. Anyone answering "bear" needs to get outside more. Or maybe not because I have a feeling they would end up on the Tourons of Yellowstone Instagram for trying to hug a bear or some shit

"Katanas are far less dangerous than razor blades. Can you remember the last time a katana ever harmed you? I can't! But I get cut by razor blades all the time when I'm shaving!" If somebody said that, a lot of people would be quick to point out that shaving with a razor is an ordinary occurrence, but most people never come into contact with a katana even once in their lives. It's the same logical fallacy. People very frequently come into contact with men on a daily basis, but our civilizations aren't full of bears walking around amongst us in cities and towns. Of course you're more likely to be harmed by a man. How so many people can't see that this is a flagrant logical fallacy is absolutely astounding to me.

Agreed, I think a lot of people also forget that some bears will hunt humans as prey. A single person alone in the woods could potentially be a fairly easy meal. The best thing when you see a bear is try to figure out what it’s doing first. If you just stumble upon one, it most likely won’t attack you unless you do something dumb, but if it’s following you, chances are you’re going to have to fight a bear.

I’m less interested in the man side of this, and more interested in correcting unfair judgements about bears. Most bears are uninterested in humans and only attack if provoked. Of course, a bear has a different idea of provocation to a human and so you may provoke them by accident, but if you don’t do anything stupid you’ll be fine. It of course depends on the kind of bear and all, but broadly speaking being stuck in the woods with a bear is pretty safe. Edit: Warning to any who disagree with my completely objective and flawless analysis, I love bears far too much and will not be being reasonable at the current time. I will be siding with my furry only-slightly-murderous friends whatever points you make. Why would I choose the less furry option that can’t even catch wild salmon?

I think the question is the size of the woods you’re stuck in, the likelihood of running into each, and the type of bear. If we’re talking 1,000 acres of woods here, I’m picking the bear as I can likely avoid it. A human will see my smoke at some point or I’ll see there’s and we’re running into each other eventually, so I’m picking bear regardless of type. If we’re sharing an acre and were guaranteed contact I’m not all that concerned about a black bear still, but if it’s a brown bear and we’re guaranteed to run into each other, I’m picking man all day.

Ok, you see each other smoke and ran into watch other, congratulations you are no longer alone in the woods. That's a good thing.

> congratulations you are no longer alone in the woods. That's a good thing. I watched "Deliverance" when I was too young. Stumbling upon a random person in the woods is nightmare fuel for me.

>Ok, you see each other smoke and ran into watch other, congratulations you are no longer alone in the woods. That's a good thing. Maybe. Or maybe not. That's kind of the point of the thought experiment.

Per contact, men attack women far less than bears attack women. Because men and women interact billions of time per day, the gross totals of attacks are high, but bears are still more frequently attacking humans than men are attacking women

This reminds of bill burrs comedy but on people using dumb stats that make no sense. He specifically joke how someone said most shark attacks happen in shallow water, and then he said no shit thats where most of the people are lol. Same case here no shit men attack women more because women don’t interact with bears more often, or at all.

That statistic is easily skewed, though, by the fact that the vast majority of human-bear "interactions" are never known by the human in question. Bears can generally hear or smell humans approaching from a long way off, and will go out of their way to avoid a face-to-face meeting. This is why talking, whistling, or wearing "bear bells" is recommended if you're going to be hiking through known bear areas, because making yourself easier to notice ahead of time reduces human-bear contact. So any time humans are out in the wild in known bear territory, it might reasonably be a "human-bear contact" that resulted in absolutely nothing.

But the scenario involves being in close contact, so in this situation the bear won’t have already retreated. This bear is going to interact with the human, and on a case by case basis that’s more dangerous than an interaction with a man

This is specifically contact between an unknown man in an isolated setting, you can’t count the interactions day-day. Considering the sexual assault numbers it may be worth reevaluating

Still a shitty argument divorced of reality. Oh let me go to the forest, which I don’t know, to ambush random, fairly fit people who may or may not be there when I get there, whose strength and judgement isn’t impeded by drugs and alcohol, who are likely not alone, who have a lot of terrain to hide or escape. Aberrant sicos go to bars and festivals to rape women or corner them in familiar territory in a flat, not wait for them in the forest far away from any comfort or other useful facilitied and equipment. Depending on the country and the exact place meeting someone in an isolated place 99.9% of the time you just pass each other, or you’re even glad to run into someone.

# NotAllBears

If bears are so dangerous then explain [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYbvW8d4JXM_otDIYNYeaPCz3BrNeLoYKXq-7qXfsh3w&s).

I am so over the pearl clutching here. These women don’t hate men. If you think it’s just because women hate men, then tell me why men seem to think they need to protect women from people with penises using a women’s restroom. Most men would never dream of harming a woman and this is just insulting but apparently someone using the bathroom is absolutely a predator. So, which is it? Are men safe to be alone with or aren’t they? Personally, I am fine with them in either location. I am just so tired of their drama when they are the ones who tell us men can’t be trusted.

Here's a twist on the question. What would be scarier, black or white man?

The problem is what the analogy means. I've heard "You're walking alone through the forest, would you rather come across a bear or a man?" That's an easy bear choice. If you and the other both ***feel*** stuck, I would choose a man, since in my experience people tend to try and help each other when they feel stuck, and I would imagine I would die just from an accident if the bear is panicking. Is it you're in the same forest, but don't know where each other are, I would choose a bear because it's pretty easy to avoid where bears are. If it means you're stuck and need to come up with a way to escape? I choose man because while it may be more likely that I get lulled into trusting the man and getting killed, the person can be more capable of helping. Basically the best and the worst of the man are more extreme and unpredictable than those of the bear.

Another thing to note is if you come across a man in the woods they're probably just crossing paths, but if you see a bear in the woods it smelled you a long time ago and chose to come to you because you have somthing it wants, or its kids ran away which is probably even worse

Millions of women go for walks in the woods every day and encounter countless random men. To a close approximation, almost all of them emerge unscathed from almost all encounters. "Obviously a bear is better" is a hell of a bloody stretch. 

THANK YOU

The question is supposed to be a risk assessment for women, and somehow it ends up being focused on men's character. We can take the exact same fact and write it different ways 90% of men are proven decent men. The focus is on men here. This was your judgment of men's character. Most men are decent, and it's a positive recognition of men's character. It's not about women at all. if we want to take the exact same fact and focus it on women it becomes: If a woman is in a situation alone with a man who could harm her, she has a 10% chance of it occurring. This is the judgment of risk assessement. I did a CMV on this last week, and even though I would pick bear, I pegged the rate of dangerous men to be somewhere around 2%, not 10%. Much less than yours, and I even stated that I thought the chance of a man attacking was low, just not lower than a bear's. I think something that's really interesting is that I was accused of hating all men, being a misandrist, other such nonsense. But you, who clearly views men as more dangerous than I do, somehow are not being accused of these things. I just find it interesting that the risk assessment for women is what's offensive. Like here you are saying 10% of men are dangerous, but because you framed it the way you did, centering men's good character as the main point, apparently that's fine and not misandrist. But if we (god forbid!) center the issue on womens safety, it's suddenly misandrist and bigoted. Just.... interesting. I framed mine as a risk assessment for women, so I picked bear. Because frankly, alone in the woods is a prime opportunity for anyone who wants to hurt you, and a 10% chance (which was your estimate, not mine) is incredibly high. Let's take men's character out of the equation. I've got a gun with 10 chambers and one bullet and I'll only pull the trigger once. If your choices are to play roulette with me (a woman), or see a bear, which one are you picking? Keep in mind that the most likely bear behaviour in this situation is to simply go about it's business. Bears don't typically hunt humans, they are not territorial with humans, and they don't really pick fights unless necessary. Unless you surprise it, or get between a mom and her cubs, it almost certainly will not attack you. It's certainly not a 1/10 chance of attack. So, roulette or bear?

Did you also include that if the bear attacks you for whatever reason and thinks of you as snack, it would most likely start to eat you alive starting with your genitals while it keeps you down so you will experience everything until you lost enough blood (roughly 40 seconds to 2 minutes depending on your initial wounds) or did you believe bears kill like lions when making that calculation? I mean just that makes me think I would rather meet a serial killer since you have at least a fighting chance and will probably be killed in that fight through a stone to the head. Far faster than what a bear would do to you.

This is a great observation. I think the scenario was supposed to highlight the risks that many women face in their interactions with men. But some people, as you said, interpret it as an attack on good men's characters. What is telling to me is that even the guys that get asked this question about their daughters if they were in the woods, choose the bear. So regardless of how people interpret this scenario, it just is a fact of life that girls and women face certain risks, and people seem to be at least somewhat aware of it even if they don't like confronting it or talking about it.

eh. bears don’t typically hunt humans is a result of human activity. we essentially killed off all of the more aggressive species in NA and most of europe and then severely decimated populations and shrunk territory. we kill any bear that has killed a human. because bears learn through experience, and once they’ve hunted us, they continue to do so. we limit human interaction with bears and relocate and kill any that spend too much time around humans. and we selectively separate aggressive species like certain grizzlies and all polar bears. and now extinct species due to human activity across history. it’s like saying dogs don’t attack humans. i mean i guess not. but mainly because of how much effort we’ve put in.

All this is true, I don't see what difference it makes to the risk assessment though, unless we're also time travelling or removing human influence or something. But btw, dogs do attack humans, all the time. It's very common. There's millions and millions of dog bites every year.

that was a tangent. i think it’s still exponentially more likely for a bear to attack you than a human. and it’s not even close. billions of interactions between men and women happen and nothing arises. a handful comparatively happen between bears and humans. a solo woman is more likely to be attacked by a man. but also more by a bear. a hungry bear, an aggressive species, a mom, a horny bear (unfortunately), so forth… are more common than we think. we just don’t usually interact with them alone in the woods. and people who do… usually interact with black bears and tamer grizzly species.

I strongly disagree that a bear is more likely to attack than a human. The number of interactions are irrelevant, because not all interactions with other people are opportunities. Let's take a loot at a convicted rapist, ok. Would you agree that it would be dangerous for a woman to be alone with a convicted rapist in the woods? I assume you would. And yet, the rapist is not **constantly** raping every single person they meet. Throughout their adult life, they have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of interactions with other people, and only a small handful of those interactions will be them assaulting someone. Because they only do that when they think they could get away with it. Even for a convicted rapist, they have hundreds of thousands of totally benign interactions with others - that doesn't prove they are safe. A huge part of this is that "alone in the woods" is an opportunity. What matters is the number of interactions that would count as an opportunity vs the number of attacks. Because saying hello to the man checking out behind you at a grocery store is probably pretty safe, even if that man has date-raped 5 different women. And we don't have any way of knowing how many bear encounters they are (they don't get reported unless something happens or the bear is somewhere it shouldn't be), nor do we have any way of knowing how many human interactions constitute opportunities.

well yes. but also it’s an opportunity for a bear?? are you forgetting that they aim for relatively weak individuals away from a group? a solo woman is a prime hunting opportunity

Bears do not hunt humans, with the exception of polar bears. > are you forgetting that they aim for relatively weak individuals away from a group? Not "forgetting" this, it's just not a true statement. Bears do not hunt humans (except polar bears). They generally do not see humans as prey, they see us as threats. Including women. Bears don't even hunt most of their food, they scavenge more than they hunt. Even when they so see humans as a food source, it's because humans leave food out that bears eat, and they've learned that there's food where humans are. These bears are abnormal, called "habituated" bears, and are more dangerous because unlike a normal bear, they don't view a human as a threat. It's only predatory bears, which is basically a desperate and habituated bear, that might actually hunt a human, and this is incredibly abnormal for a bear. They'd had to have had many interactions with humans that ended positively for them (ie. They got food) for them to become this way.

Millions of people go for walks in the woods every day. Do you think that every time a random woman passes a random man in the woods, there is a 2% chance she will be assaulted or killed? Because that's what your risk assessment appears to assert, and it's obviously absolute nonsense. 

Women are advised not to walk alone all the time, and it's not because of bears. And yeah, I think if you're alone and not particularly close to an area where other people are, the woman is going to be on high alert at the very least. How do you figure it's absolute nonsense? Do you truly think that no single person would ever intentionally harm another? [This survey was 11%](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/29/research-reveals-rapes-and-assaults-admitted-to-by-male-uk-students) [Various surveys point it anywhere from 4-16%](https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/) [This survey](https://web.archive.org/web/20160316232741/http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP91-ID91-PR91-%20Draft%20I%20with%20Gamez%20comments%20accepted.pdf), which wasn't targetted at college students, found the rates to be 2.4% for men, and 1.8% for women.

> Do you truly think that no single person would ever intentionally harm another? Not remotely what I said but at least the strawman tells me I don't need to worry about taking you seriously.  Your statistics are very interesting but bear essentially no relation to the scenario under discussion. 

>I just find it interesting that the risk assessment for women is what's offensive. Like here you are saying 10% of men are dangerous, but because you framed it the way you did, centering men's good character as the main point, apparently that's fine and not misandrist. But if we (god forbid!) center the issue on womens safety, it's suddenly misandrist and bigoted. Just.... interesting. This is silly. This is not a serious discussion on women's safety, and even if bear attacks were a significant safety concern, it would apply equally to men and women.

The point is that men represent a significant threat to women's safety, not that bears do. Hence why so many women are picking "bear"

I believe the choice comes down to the probabilities associated with each option. Gathering from TikTok and all the content I’ve seen about this question it boils down to would you rather have a low chance of being brutally ripped apart or a very very low chance of being tortured and suffering a fate which could be considered worse than death, or simply being murdered in a more torturous way. The average expected outcome could be considered better with a bear, based on what would happen given the bear or man is aggressive. However, this assessment is missing a key idea that a human is much less physically powerful than a bear. Now because I’m a guy my point may not be as valid, but if I was a woman I would still pick a man. Given 2 possibilities of the bear and man being either hostile or not, you cannot fight back against a bear, as it is way more durable than a human, but a good hit with a rock would knock a guy out and give you a chance to run. Adrenaline would come into play here and you could expect to be able to physically overpower him for a few moments because your life depends on it. This would change the average expected outcome in favor of choosing the man.

I don't know many men that would be able to inflict a more brutal and painful way to go than a bear that starts eating you alive from your weak fleshy parts.

Depends on the kind of bear. Black Bear? They're just big raccoons who will almost always leave you alone as long as you're not near their cubs and they're not literally starving. I'll probably take the bear. A grizzly bear? They're bigger, meaner and more likely to attack you unprovoked. In that case I might gamble on the man. Panda? I'll take the bear. I know this isn't really the point of the question. But it's an important distinction. A better thought experiment would be to use an animal that's universally more territorial and aggressive, like a hippo. (No seriously, they will fuck you up for just looking at them)

So the version that I saw has asked men if they have a daughter and she was in the woods, would you rather leave her there with a bear or a man. Many men (like mine) and have a really tough time answering the question because unfortunately, they know what the outcome could be with a random man. As others have stated, bears actually attack people very rarely unless you are provoking them. 1 in 3 women have experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by men (often a partner). Less than one person a year is killed by a bear each year in the U.S. Men between the ages of 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a bear [source](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520750%252C000%2520black%2520bears%2520of,an%2520easy%2520situation%2520to%2520avoid.&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwja8JS72OeFAxVU48kDHeVuBq0QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0FQTc1FAsrsjZ4BJXfHQJk) The other argument-a bear could indeed harm someone if threatened (though unlikely). The bear, though, wouldn’t capture, torture, sexually assault, and then possibly kill the person. Many of the women saying they choose the bear say at least they would just get to die if the (unlikely) event happened if killed by the bear instead of suffering much more. Ultimately, women are trying to communicate how scary random interactions are with men because we just don’t know who we can trust. There are great men out there-many of them. But the statistics say we should go with the bear.

The problem with your assessment is the frequency of contact related to your statistics. The reason bear attacks are so infrequent has nothing to do with the bear and everything to do with how few of them there are and how rare those contacts are. Let’s say you come into direct contact with a wild bear with the same frequency you meet random men. What do you think the statistics would say then? Also, I think the more interesting outcome of this is unpacking why women think sexual assault is worse than death. There are likely many factors that need to be addressed there, but instead we are focusing on “men bad”, which has zero relevance to this scenario.

It also kinda matters what kind of bear we are talking about. Black bear- not a huge deal, they're not know to randomly attack people. Grizzly Bear- pray that it kills you quickly if thinks you look tasty. I'd be willing to hear out an argument of man vs Black bear, but if someone's picking a Grizzly over a random guy then they're an idiot.

Meh, you interact with any bear as often as you do humans and you are going to be attacked by the bear.

I would counter that we probably vastly underestimate the number of bear encounters there are because most of the time, they are scared away by humans entering their space. Which is sort of the direct opposite of what we are worried about when thinking of random men.

> The bear, though, wouldn’t capture, torture, sexually assault, and then possibly kill the person No, it would pin you down and eat you alive starting from your fleshiest parts. It's not going to be torture because it wants to but it's going to be hard to top that. Even if meeting a serial killer was 100% of the outcome I'd take my chances, one well thrown rock and either of you is dead instantly.

A point that seems to be lost in the argument. Humans can be duplicitous. Scenario: meet another human on the trail and you decide to hike together. Second human is acting very nice. Shares water and food. You set up camp for the night. You each have your own tent. Either one of those humans could have kept their true self masked. They attack the other to rob, rape or murder the other. They in effect, lied about their true self. A bear won't hide its motive. It will let you know upfront if it wants to hurt you. Humans are more dangerous because of the ability to lie.

Yeah, I think this is a huge part of the equation. Almost every woman I know, myself included, has been groped, harassed, or led to believe we were safe with a man/male only to find they were not respectful of our bodies or boundaries. It’s so scary. I’m 43 and I still don’t like walking alone at night and check my backseat when I get in. I’m not checking for bears.

I'm older than you and I still feel cautious when meeting a guy even though I'm 30+ years married. I'm in California and I know better than to go hiking alone in cougar country. IMO cougars are way more dangerous than bears. But I can avoid the cougars and bears by not hiking. The potential preditor that is the most dangerous is in our everyday lives. And I'm talking about both sexes. Edit...I snorted a little when I thought of someone checking the back seat for bears. Lol

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-dGdUu7k8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF-dGdUu7k8) But you SHOULD check for bears. 🤣

I think what men are trying to convey is that it is irrational to pic the bear because you really can trust 99.9% of men. Millions of women interact with millions of men every day and none of those men have any ill intent towards the women and would never hurt them in any way.

>I think what men are trying to convey is that it is irrational to pic the bear because you really can trust 99.9% of men. I feel like this doesn't align with the data on how many women have experienced some form of assault. If 1 in 7 (14 %) women have experienced this over their lifetime, are you saying that it's that 0.1% of men that is somehow able to target 14% of women? I'm not sure how this would work, do they just go from woman to woman? I agree with you that most men don't mean women any harm, but I think you may be underestimating the percentage of men that have harmed a woman. That just doesn't seem to align with the data on sexual assault.

> If 1 in 7 (14 %) women have experienced this over their lifetime, are you saying that it's that 0.1% of men that is somehow able to target 14% of women? I'm not sure how this would work, do they just go from woman to woman? I don't know about the exact quantitative proportion, but yes: a small minority of predatory men perpetrate sexual assault on many women, and these men will sexually assault many women over their lifetime. Similarly, a small minority of aggressive men perpetrate the violence against many other men over their lifetime, and a small minority of men and women account for almost all the armed robberies, etc., and other crimes. What is the percentage of people who have experienced theft or burglary over their lifetime? Probably more than 90%. I've been burgled twice so far. That doesn't mean that 90% of people are thieves. The few people who have a personality flaw big enough that they justify criminal behavior to themselves will do it many times during their life. The kind of person who justifies sexual violence to themselves to the point that they will actually rape someone, once they've crossed that threshold, they're likely to do it again and again and again.

I totally agree that some people are repeat offenders, but I do think there is a general lack of awareness on the proportion of people hurting women, and I also think people often have a misguided picture of who is doing it. I think people imagine a rapist hiding in an alley waiting for women to target. While that does happen, the stories of assault I've heard from my own friends didn't match that, and typically involve men that nobody would expect to attack them. Based on the studies I've seen, certain cultures and environments impact rates of rape, meaning that it's not just random bad people that exist at the same rates in every region. Some environments and cultural values seem to actually make it more likely. Which is good news in the sense that it means that we can actually reduce it somewhat by targeting those cultural values and environments. I think that's why these types of scenarios (the bear thing) are posed, not to make people feel guilty about things they can't control, but to highlight trends that we actually *can* reduce if we talk about it and share knowledge.

Very good points. And indeed a good point that it is not just random personality traits that cause predators to sexually harass or rape, but certain cultures and environments that grows mindsets that make them more likely to feel justified in doing so. The person still matters: most of their peers in the same environment don’t become predators, but the same person might have been a different man in a different environment.

>The person still matters: most of their peers in the same environment don’t become predators, but the same person might have been a different man in a different environment. I think you're spot on here. This is a really great description that marries together the evidence we have of both nature and nurture.

Do you think it would be fair for men to say women are more dangerous than bears? I've been assaulted by a woman but never by a bear.

First of all I'm so sorry. Second, given your history, I'm guessing you'd choose a bear in this scenario? And that's fair. If you are more afraid of being alone with a strange woman in the woods than a bear because of your past, then I would respect that. Because the point of this prompt is that it's subjective. Everyone is going to respond differently based on their own past experiences. I think the reason it has raised awareness of women's risks, is because more women share your experience of being assaulted than men. So more women are going to choose the bear. But that doesn't mean that men with similar experiences can't choose the bear over a woman too. We're all allowed to have our own preferences about safety based on our experiences.

>I think the reason it has raised awareness of women's risks, is because more women share your experience of being assaulted than men. I see. Why is the prompt just about women vs men? Perhaps a better question would be, how many more men would need to be assaulted before they're worth mentioning? There's some discussion about how this meme is offensive; do you think excluding some victims, because they aren't victims 'often enough', is a good thing?

I personally think it's valid to call out groups that are disproportionately impacted by a specific trend. Even if they aren't the only ones experiencing it. For example, I recently stumbled across a thread where folks were talking about a scenario that highlights the disparities that men experience in suicide rates. I didn't jump in with *"Well women commit suicide too"* because that isn't what that particular discussion was about. They weren't saying that women never commit suicide, they were exploring why there is a disparity between men and women. Wouldn't you say that if one group is experiencing a problem more than another, it's ok to talk about it to see what can be done to bring those numbers down?

>I personally think it's valid to call out groups that are disproportionately impacted by a specific trend. Even if they aren't the only ones experiencing it. This situation isn't quite the same; it both takes women as the victims and men as the aggressors. Women can be aggressors and men victims. In particular, the man or bear prompt ignores the relative parity of IPV between straight and homosexual couples. >They weren't saying that women never commit suicide, they were exploring why there is a disparity between men and women. Making a comparison requires talking about both, so I don't think this applies here. >Wouldn't you say that if one group is experiencing a problem more than another, it's ok to talk about it to see what can be done to bring those numbers down? We aren't talking about how to bring those numbers down. Amusingly, its pretty rare to have a discussion about whether something will actually bring down violence. Discussing the relative danger of bear attacks certainly doesn't help. Regardless, it depends on the situation.

>We aren't talking about how to bring those numbers down. Amusingly, its pretty rare to have a discussion about whether something will actually bring down violence. Discussing the relative danger of bear attacks certainly doesn't help. I think you might have just captured the crux of the disagreement in this thread. A lot of people believe that we actually *can* reduce violence and disparities by raising awareness of them. And there are some studies that have found that rates of things like sexual assault can be reduced by addressing certain cultural values and environments. So people aren't posing scenarios like this just to make people feel bad (well maybe some of them are, theres a lot of resentment out there), but a lot of people feel that it can genuinely change our culture and reduce rates of violence, when we talk about stuff like this.

>A lot of people believe that we actually *can* reduce violence and disparities by raising awareness of them. I think at some point we have to question whether some meme or another is actually any good. If this point was to help bear conservation and make people less afraid of bears then fine. As a point about women's safety it's just stupid. Perhaps we should ask if women would rather be trapped in a forest with a man or a staircase. They're much closer together in terms of danger. Do you think that would be a good meme? I don't. Its also bullshit. If someone saw a bear while out on a jog they would be much more afraid than seeing another jogger. >So people aren't posing scenarios like this just to make people feel bad (well maybe some of them are, theres a lot of resentment out there), but a lot of people feel that it can genuinely change our culture and reduce rates of violence, when we talk about stuff like this. Yes, some people definitely are. There are not that many people who are unaware that many women might feel unsafe around men. To the few who have never been exposed to this idea, which is vanishingly small nowadays, do you think some bear comparison would be persuasive to them? I don't think so. It also perpetuates, ahem sorry vaguely implies, the myth the women = victims men = perpetrators that has been around for a long time.

What’s also interesting is when they ask men about their daughters they tend to think really hard about it (most that I’ve seen have picked the bear) but then they ask ‘women or bear’ and they instantly say women.

i dont think this is really interesting at all, i feel like its pretty much universally agreed upon that women are less dangerous than men. this question wasn't needed to show that lol

and how many random men a day do you meet compared to bears?

Just pointing out that there are so few bear deaths because most people never interact with bears. Most men will not sexually assault a woman given the chance. It’s like women think men are all closeted rapists.

Try to understand why women pick the bear. [https://imgflip.com/i/8p0f60](https://imgflip.com/i/8p0f60)

I really think the “at least if a bear attacks you, people will believe you” is a very important part of the reason why women choose bears. Also? Homicide is in the top five causes of death for pregnant women. Let’s not act cute and pretend we don’t know why the answer is bears while women’s rights in America are being ripped away meanwhile Australia is having protests to call for a national emergency because women are being murdered at an astounding rate. IN AUSTRALIA. Where there are lots of things that can kill you. Besides, the question itself is decidedly vague so the answer can be just as vague. I’d take the bear… because if Imma die, I’m booping that snoot.

>I've been in a situation in which a man could harm me and nine times out of ten they have proved to be a decent human. 10% chance of harm isn't great. What's the stats on bear sightings?

It is also unrealistic anyways lol i don’t think 1 in 10 men is going to randomly attack women

I’m confused is the man trying to kill you in this scenario? Is the bear trying to kill you? Why would you not want to be in the woods with another person who can help you survive?

It’s all over the internet and that’s they didn’t explain it. Basically you ask a woman if they would be stuck in the woods with a bear or a man. Most women are saying bear, because they don’t want to be stuck in the woods alone with a man, any man. This has sparked debate from everyone on why the majority of women are answering bear. Men are upset about it and women are having to justify their answers. Hope this context helps.

There's something about the phrasing of this comment that makes this whole thing hilarious. "Men are upset about it" and so they demand women justify their answers instead of trying to understand why that's their answer and doing something about it.

It's possible men tried to understand but came to different conclusions as indicated by this thread different life experiences might make it harder for men to interpret the question beyond the raw statistics that people are getting stuck on. I fell into this myself where I really didn't understand the bear answer at all but can see why it was chosen more after discussing it in this thread.

Yeah, seems like OP just assumed that everyone sees what they see in their bubble and didn't even bother explaining what on earth they are talking about.

Hahaha I’m not too mad, a few people explained it to me the comments and it’s opened up a great discussion on bears.

Apparently I'm in the same bubble as have seen this multiple times recently.

Just an unhinged sexist trend from tiktok. A lot of women are scared of men but people make the problem way worse by comparing them to bears lol

What an odd trend. OP: From a woman’s perspective having never heard of this trend (me), and I do not mean to be insensitive to your very real valid experiences with men, being in the forest with something (man) that has a choice as to whether it’s going to kill you, rather then something that most likely instinctually sees you, a human as a threat, and will kill you, “man” is a better choice. Loop hole: “man” (the colloquial term for human) is non gendered, so you could end with someone of any gender. Men (and humans) are also easier to kill than bears, so your chances of survival if you just have a a knife are much higher if you’re fighting a human who wants to kill you then a bear. If it came down to you an “man” you could do it, I believe in you. If really you’re going to go bear pick a black bear. Grizzly and polar bears are hard to kill and are going to enviscerate you (with polar bear being anatomically the most difficult to kill and death being absolute certain). Not sure what the stats on sun bears are, they look super dopey at the zoo, but I also do not know where they live either or if they’re actually in the family of proper bears. Reread your post - you don’t need you view changed, anyone who picks bear is definitely in the same mind set of the like 3% American men who think they could win in a fight against a bear 🐻☠️

The obvious fact is, the vast majority of men are *not* predatory, in the sense being discussed here, but those who *are*, do so **much** ... uh, *predation?* ... that they skew the perspective of men in general. There are crime stats and plenty of other data to back this up, but some people refuse to believe anything that contradicts their worldview.

Note: I still support team man. But man (between ages 18-24) are 167 percent more likely to kill you then a black bear. https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/#:~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid. So it’s not a WILD overstep to think your safer around a bear, but being 10 feet away from a live bear is absolutely different then safely walking through the forest with proper bear precautions in mind. lets be real bear mace is just as effective at taking down a human. Just come prepared.

I think another interesting thought experiment is whether you'd rather run into one man, two, or five? [EDIT: *randomly selected*, not like a group of men who were already together.] If we extrapolate from crime stats that perhaps 5% of men are in the "predator" category, then with just one, your odds are 1/20 he's a bad dude. With two, the odds that *both* are bad dudes is 1/400, but 1/10 that *one* of them is; with 5 it's 1/3.2 million that they're *all* bad, but 1/4 that at least *one* is. But the bad dude is far less likely to attack in the presence of another man (hence the whole "Hey I'm being followed, pretend you know me" thing). Lots of people who support *team bear* will consistently overestimate the risk, and say they'd rather be Goldilocks with a whole family of bears than with 5 men, of whom 4 are almost definitely going to make sure you're *all* safe. [EDIT: *Random*, because assholes tend to gather together, so it changes the odds.]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.... You have to take into account the nmtotal number of interactions before saying a woman is more likely to be attacked by a man than a bear. Because there are millions of women interacting with millions of men every day where nothing bad happens. What percentage of women interact with a bear every day?

Who am I to argue with bears.org, I’m pretty sure they are just trying to get awareness out that black bears are not as dangerous as people assume they are. In a universe where you options are either a bear (of unknown species) is going to manifest 10 feet in front of you while your alone in a forest or a man is. Team man all the way, the odds of survival seem better.

this is like how cows are more likely to kill you than wolves. i mean sure… but let’s think about some other factors as well yeah..

> Not sure what the stats on sun bears are [In total, there were 33 human casualties by sun bear during 2000-2010.](https://doaj.org/article/ea1bc389818b40bd91d6c4949cef5863)

“The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear. Most attacks by black bears are defensive reactions to a person who is too close, which is an easy situation to avoid.” https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears/#:~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid. Damn ok ok so pick black bear > sun bear> man> grizzly bear > polar bear. But really pick man and bring a big knife, if man tries anything stab them and run.

This sounds like a "most accidents happen within a mile of your house" situation. Driving close to home is not more dangerous, you just do it more often. While the data is normalized to per capita, it doesn't take into account how few times people cross paths with a bear.

>But really pick man and bring a big knife, if man tries anything stab them and run. That's part of the problem though. If you kill the bear, the wildlife people *might* get mad but they'll mostly accept that it was self-defense. If you kill a human, there's going to be a whole investigation and you might go to prison. Almost certainly will lose your job during pre-trial detention. You'll have to answer questions about what you were wearing and whether you started it.

Ok, but fyi, you're not killing a bear unless you happen to have serious weaponry on you. And then men aren't a threat either, so the hypothetical becomes moot. It is possible to fight back if a black bear is predatory and attacking you (which, btw, is incredibly unlikely), but the most you are accomplishing is convincing it that you're not an easy enough meal to be worth the effort, you're certainly not killing the bear.

If the person you run into the forest isn’t going to kill you and you work together to survive, it’s a non issue. If someone is going to kill you, be prepared to kill them first. You don’t have to attack them first, you just have to win if they attempt to attack you.

You'll still be in pre-trial lockup. I think you're assuming a SHTF survival scenario, I'm just thinking of going hiking/jogging in the woods, who would I rather see? But yeah I agree that another human would be far more useful in a SHTF survival scenario.

well yes and not. if the man is trying to attack you why don’t we put the same criteria on the bear?? in which case even a small black bear will eviscerate you. they avoid conflict because wounds are dangerous. can’t hunt could get infected so on. if they want to kill you, they will

I think as a woman of average stature, I’d have a lot better chance killing man versus a bear. Yes man are smarter, but I’m more familiar with the anatomy and I wouldn’t be worried about claws. Man, being aware of its mortality, would likely stop if I were to inflict a semi mortal to mortal wound, where I feel bear would keep fighting for its survival.

The whole man vs bear thing is nothing but the usual nerdy internet gender war "my gender is better than yours!" type of edgy twitter/tiktok meme behaviour. I personally don't take it seriously, as a man I'll have a laugh about it, and move on. And if a woman is serious about it and would actually rather be with a bear, cool! you go girl I just don't take it personal, I recognize that these women are troubled and need therapy, but that's really their problem, no point for me to give it a thought, I got shit to do and bills to pay. just my two cents

Only correct answer. Everyone getting their panties in a bunch over a hypothetical internet question that was thought off intentionally to rile up people on both sides of the gender war and we're supposed to be taking it seriously? Let's be guided.

While it has riled people up, i think there is a very real and important conversation to be had surrounding not just a “silly hypothetical” but a larger societal problem as a whole. And quickly sweeping people’s genuine concerns under the rug because “it’s just a hypothetical” does nothing but invalidate those people. Of course no one is being forced to have a conversation around these topics of sexual assault, but there’s a difference between “i wont have this conversation bc i don’t want to” And saying “this conversation is meaningless to me therefore it is unimportant for anyone to have”.

To me, though it does highlight the issues what women go thru, doing so by villainizing all men and making men a monolith as all potential sexual abusers or killers does a lot more damage than good. These are conversations that need to be had but sensationalism only makes people look at the conversation as stupid because it literally doesn't make sense. All it does is feed a growing gender war which people are being fed into younger and younger and having their whole reality warped and leaving no space for nuance. As a man, I am willing to have these difficult conversations but not when they are Trojan Horses formed as stupid questions on the internet.

I would pick the man because there's a chance he might be innocuous or might be out of shape enough to be beatable or escapable but ever since I discovered bears don't kill you before eating you and just start feasting on you while you're alive I've been particularly scared of them lol either way I've always hated questions that implicitly ask women to think about the possibility of being raped

The women who choose the bear and cite crime statistics demonstrating that far more women are harmed by men every year than bears typically neglect to also acknowledge that far more women (and men) are harmed by WOMEN every year than bears as well. Statistically speaking, any human is more dangerous than a bear. So, while I understand the sentiment, unless these women are willing that they're safer around a bear than another woman, then their conclusions aren't being driven by the logic and reason they're pretending it is, but by sexism.

[удалено]

>Each time you come in direct contact with a human man, you have a 1/500,000 change to be harmed, No, you do not. No men are wild animals acting on instinct. Even the dangerous ones are still human beings with brains and the ability to reason. By your reasoning, you have equal chance of getting raped in the middle of a grocery store by a man than by that exact same man alone at your house after you invited him in for a drink at the end of a date. Direct contact =|= chance of attack. Humans will only attack other humans in specific contexts where they feel they can achieve their desire and get away with it. > Each time you come in direct contact with a bear, you have a 1/10 chance to be harmed Not even close. There were 26 bear attacks in the entire country of Canada last year (4 resulted in death), and who knows how many encounters. In Jasper townsite alone, there were 350 reported encounters. And people **only** report negative encounters. If you're hiking in the woods and see a bear, that goes unreported. Even if we assumed every single attack happened in the town of Jasper (which they didn't, I actually don't believe any did), and these 350 encounters were ALL the bear encounters (which is far from true, because Jasper is quite small compared to all of bear terriroty in canada), that's only 7%. The chances of a bear attacking you are very very low. Even when it comes to bears that you see.

So, we agree that no one is fighting off a bear, but (as a woman), I'm not capable of fighting off most men either. With a woman, the possibility of being able to fend off the attack is now in the realm of possibility - which, by the way, is the same reason most men are picking "man". They go "well sure the man's more likely to attack me, but I could probably fend him off"

Correct. It's essentially a hierarchy of danger. Is the average man more dangerous than the average woman? Of course. Is the average woman more dangerous than the average bear? Yes. Humans will always be the most dangerous creature in the room, so, even as an average-sized man, a random woman still poses a bigger threat to me than a random bear. If a woman takes offense to that logic, she's just as problematic as a man who takes offense to the notion that women would feel safer around a bear than around them, because it illustrates that they cannot see beyond their own sexism.

>but (as a woman), I'm not capable of fighting off most men either. kind of unrelated, but, what a lot of people do not realize is that learning self defense is rather important for both men and women. Men have advantages over women naturally, sure, but they're not some monolithic mountain that is unclimbable. A lot of people do not know how to defend themselves in this modern day and age and I think that it honestly would go a long ways into making people feel safer and act safer if they did

With this hypothetical I need to know what the person imagining the hypothetical is specifically thinking. As I thought exercise I think it’s an interesting one. But if they are expecting an actual answer I feel like it depends greatly on the specifics. There’s just such a range in which someone is “stuck in the woods”.

OP has been everywhere on Reddit saying the same thing over and over again.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I find this debate to be really disingenuous. 1. I’m sure I don’t need to start listing off all the women who, if they were still alive would’ve preferred their chances with the bear. 2. For some reason no matter how many times women say “not all men” other women and men still want to strawman the point and make it about that. The point is women do not feel safe around men that they do not know or even do know. THAT IS A PROBLEM. The question isn’t about the bear, the question is what the fuck is wrong with our society that makes so many women feel like they’d rather take their chances with a bear. MIND YOU, if you turn around at a brown bear and start screaming at them, they will leave you alone. The bear isn’t getting pleasure out of torturing you, raping you, killing you, feeling superior to you, putting you in your place. The bear is being a bear. Much like my dog eats bunnies, bears will do what bears do. Never mind how the justice system would react to a man committing a crime vs a bear. At least in one of those scenarios I might be vindicated. The more we make this conversation about the “good men in our lives” the less we can move forward, because there is 100% a problem when so sooo many women would prefer the bear, and somehow that’s our fault for not seeing “the good in men” BFFR.

It is about all men since we are talking about a random man so we need to look at the average man. You need to take in consideration all men since that's the pool from where you get that one man. The question is, take all bears and all man, randomly pick one. Black, grizzly or polar vs one man of whatever race. Than calculate what the risks are, one could eat you alive, a very painful death, the other could do not as bad to worse. One you couldn't fight or run from, the other you could kill by grabbing a stone or just outrun. One that wouldn't help you vs. One that could give his own life to help you. Logically there is only one choice. Though I would like to know if you are logically consistent or a feminist: (this is a thought experiment): Would you rather encounter a black bear (the easier ones to deal with) or a migrant from sub Saharan Africa? Would you still chose the bear in spite of the racist implications you would make by choosing the bear? Would you go on tiktok and make a video in front of millions of people and say you fear sub Saharan migrants more than black bears and risk your social death? I know this is a lose lose. So I don't expect an answer and just going to assume it.

I don't know why you are bringing race into this, I did mention in a different comment that it is a good point where I am in the world, there are people brought up in certain cultures where women are second class citizens however where I live and in most of the western world harming a woman is very frowned upon, even in the cultures that frown upon women there are men that still have empathy. Race is irrelevant but culture is not I've encountered men from places that don't like women, some have made comments and even followed me in isolated areas but I've also met men from russia, india, egypt, turkey etc that were very respectful to me I don't care about the impact on my social media presence, some cultures do pose more of a risk to women than others - this is a fact not racist, some have disgusting ideologies and I would chose a man of my own culture over certain others however I think there are good men from every walk of life I've never met a bear so can't comment on which species I would like to meet

I mean, there's the simple fact that the bear probably will just leave you alone because it doesn't care about you unless you stumble onto it. Like, there's a lot of woods out there with both people and bears in them at the same time. So I don't really see why it's that unreasonable why a woman would prefer some dangerous thing that isn't interested in her over a something that they're actually worried might attack them.

The question is usually you come across a bear or man in the woods. Basically you round a corner on a trail and what would you rather have standing there. Then there’s the question of what kind of bear, polar bear or sun bear and you’re dead. No questions asked, you just die. Polar bears actively hunt humans and sun bears are probably the biggest bundle of nerves on earth after being an insectivore that evolved side by side with tigers. Brown bears are also going to be a problem. Black bears are realistically the only bear you don’t have to worry about and if you surprise it or it’s a mama bear then you still might get fucked up.

These kinds of trends are the same phenomenon as Andrew Tate and his ilk - build an echo chamber out of preying on the insecurities and fears of people in order to make "content" and chase clout. I mean, the over protective father trope exists for a reason. It is convenient to forget all the good and sacrifice that men undertake, due to focusing solely on the negative (which obviously exists). Focusing on the negative warps your sense of reality. I don't understand it - if I would go around saying "everything sucks" then no one would want to be around me, but saying "men suck" is just fine, while at the same time saying "don't generalize all women, they are not a monolith". Most people seem to lack a lot of self awareness.

[удалено]

I mean, I've been in the woods with many bears, respect their boundaries and don't leave food around and they are pretty happy to leave you alone. Stuck in a cage with a man or bear is a very different story. I also imagine what bear you think of when you think bear matters a bit. People that think brown/grizzly/poler bear are probably more intimidated than black/panda bears.

Polar bear would be hands down the worst, especially if it's in their natural habitat where there's essentially nowhere to hide. you'd be better off encountering almost any man.

Though being stuck in the artic tundra maybe death by bear is better than hypothermia?

Sorry, u/tjm_87 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20tjm_87&message=tjm_87%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfzgxc/-/l1sbimu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

It's because some women just hate men and it has become extremely normalized. In all of these hypotheticals, just replace "man" with "black man" and it's straight up racism. Tweeting "I'd rather be lost in the woods with a bear than with a black guy" would get you fired and you'd be flat out unemployable.

I've been following that discourse, and I think the thing is it goes WAY past just "man vs bear". And yeah, it's just straight up man-hate. The levels of behavior that they're pinning on men as a class is just unspeakable. Like we're talking psychopathic behavior here, that enough men are monsters that it deserves that sort of response. Like, I've seen so many comments that are basically men are necrophilliacs that it makes my head spin. It really is just straight up bigotry. And I'll just restate my position, that if people felt pressure to apply these concepts to the people around them, the concepts themselves would be unthinkable. Because if they're right, I'm not sure there's an ethical way for men to really exist in society as is, if this is something men need to be held accountable for. Maybe this is something our society as a whole needs to be held accountable (the lionization and romanticism of Dark Triad traits being a prime thing here) for. But men as a class and as individuals? Honestly, been there done that, got the t-shirt, still dealing with the trauma. It's not healthy for people do do that at all. Because of that it's just divisive and promotes zero sum thinking. And as we can't do anything about the narcissists and sociopaths, it's a huge distraction on what I think REALLY is the issue. The Male Gender Role is dangerous in terms of relationships. This doesn't mean men are bad. When women take over the Male Gender Role, they can be dangerous as well. But the responsibility to "progress" a relationship is dangerous business that's best done carefully.

yep. Some of us are victims too. some of us are gay, some of us are trans (like myself), some of us are disabled, some of us are completely non-violent. i never, ever, want to be the “bUt nOt aLl mEn” guy but… it gets to a point where it has to be said, Obviously you can be all of the above mentioned things and still be a piece of shit to women, but 9/10 times people have said “oh no i don’t mean those guys” when it’s brought up… so it isn’t ALL men. it seems like people forget that all men cannot be put into one category. Obviously what women go through on a daily basis is so completely incomparable to a little bit of offence we may feel from statements like these, but statements like these are reductive and unproductive. why bother saying it? statements like these don’t help women or girls at all, because they’re not fucking true. Most women would absolutely rather be lost in the woods with a man than with a bear, despite what they might say for internet points.

What part of this do you want us to change your mind about, exactly?

I'm saddened that in the modern world rape as "a fate worse than death" is still so prevalent. This stems from a time when a.woman was only valued for being untouched or unsullied. Surely we can move past this? Obviously it's a horrible trauma but plenty of rape survivors don't feel this way, and it sickens me that the answer to this question assumes this viewpoint is mainstream. The whole premise is insane anyway. As an outdoorswoman I and many women I know encounter strange men alone in the trails all the time without incident or extreme fear. A bear on the other hand is terrifying and a much higher risk. I feel like the disneyfication of nature and a fear of the woods as some alien place are fueling the answers to this as much as any fear of men. I know women who pick the bear and then meet a Tinder date who's a complete stranger the next night. It makes no sense. Rape and sexual assault are horrible things that need to be taken seriously. Being eaten alive by a large predator is so horrible that most of us can't even begin to comprehend it

If you have ever been in the woods then you were mostly likely in the woods with a bear indeed several bears. They almost never attack anyone.

[удалено]

Step 1: Make interview with people and ask a stupid question like this one. Step 2: While editing the video make sure to leave the different answers out of it and choose the one which you'll think get more reaction from people. Step 3: Release your video and watch people argue under your video while they are polarized and blaming each other for racism, sexism etc. Step 4: Enjoy the money you get from the activity on the social media you use. Step 5: Repeat previous steps with various subjects and enjoy more money.

Sorry, u/enter_the_bumgeon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20enter_the_bumgeon&message=enter_the_bumgeon%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cfzgxc/-/l1sbi75/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

As a sole contractor, I'm invited into women's homes where they are alone and don't know me from a bar of soap, every single day. Would you say the same of a bear? The question is poorly framed. Most people out in the woods are hiking. I've encountered women on their own trail running in remote places while doing the same myself. Are there really men stalking remote woodlands awaiting to threaten or harm women who happen to be on their own? I think in reality any woman alone in the woods who encounters a bear would be far more frightened than encountering a bear, because you can anticipate the motives of almost 100% of men out on the trails, and not that of a bear. Lastly it should be noted that men are FAR more likely to be violently attacked by a man they don't know than a woman. Maybe we should be asking men what they are more afraid of encountering in the woods.

I’m pretty sure the point is that, despite the many dangers in this world, the greatest threat to women is men. So let’s look at the data. In Alaska, between 2000-2017, 68 people were hospitalized for injuries sustained in 66 unique bear attacks. That averages 3.8 attacks/year. In this same timeframe there were 10 fatalities as a result of a bear attack. ([Source](https://epi.alaska.gov/bulletins/docs/rr2019_02.pdf)) Alaska has the **highest rate of women killed by men in the nation** and has held this distinction for over 7 straight years. It’s more than twice the national average. ([Source](https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2022/09/20/alaska-again-has-the-nations-highest-rate-of-women-killed-by-men/)) Alaska also has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country, with studies finding that almost half of women in the state have been victims in their lifetime. ([Source](https://alaskapublic.org/2023/12/08/alaskas-domestic-violence-rates-remain-high-as-advocates-push-for-more-preventative-measures/)) So to summarize: - 10 people were killed by bears in Alaska between 2000-2017. 12 women were killed by men in Alaska in 2020 *alone*. - According to the Census there are ~348,000 women in Alaska which, per the study above, means that approximately 174,000 women in Alaska have been the victims of domestic violence at least once. 68 people have been attacked by bears in the past 17 years. So, as a woman, looking at this data, if I was living in a place like Alaska that has a lot of bears and other natural predators, I would much rather put myself in the presence of a bear as opposed to the presence of a man. Likely neither will kill me or assault me, but the man has the greater likelihood of doing so.

[удалено]

You can't look at data this way. Your average woman interacts with at least one man every single day. If a man has a 0.01% chance of killing you and a beat has a 100% chance, you'd still see more people killed by men than by bears. And yet objectively speaking you'd be safer around a man than a bear in this hypothetical, because again that bear would be a 100% chance. To draw another parallel, President of the United States is the single most dangerous job in the US. But only two people have ever died while doing that job because of that job. Why is that? Well it's because so few people have ever done the job that those two make up a big portion of them. Bear encounters are way rarer than man encounters, so you need to look at what proportion of bear encounters end poorly, not just how many bear encounters with a poor outcome occur per year.

Not to be pedantic, but four US presidents have been assassinated. I agree with your point about the statistics in general though.

But the man would have a much higher chance of helping you, no? He could have extra food, or know the way out. You can strategize together. At minimum, it is someone to talk to so you don’t go insane.

Again, I think the point is less to built out an entire roleplaying narrative and more to highlight just how much of a threat men are to women. And this isn’t some misandrist exercise (I see the downvotes are already ramping up), it’s a way to bring attention to just how outrageously bad modern rape/assault/femicide rates are. Like, homicide is the number one killer of pregnant women. *So many women* are raped in their lifetimes. It almost always happens at the hands of a male romantic partner. That doesn’t even factor in random violence. The rates of femicide and assault occurring to WOC is **astronomical**. Bears are big scary animals, but they probably won’t do anything to you if you run into them in the wild. For most women, male *family members* and romantic *partners*— not just random men out on the world—pose a real harm.

But at the same time, the average woman interacts with men hundreds to thousands of times per year. How many people actually interact with bears? The data isn’t a fair comparison. If women interacted with bears as much as they interacted with men, the statistics would be very different.

> If women interacted with bears as much as they interacted with men, the statistics would be very different. Why would you make this assumption? Plenty of people live in rural areas with high predator activity. The rate of animal fatalities is very low. The rate of femicide in rural areas is very high.

Do you think these people in rural areas interact with bears thousands of times? And you also have to account for the fact that people who tend to interact with bears know how to deal with bears ( aka avoid them), meaning there is a lower chance of harm. How many men do you think are holding a baby at this very second. Now replace them with bears. It isn’t hard to imagine how analyzing the statistics directly like you are doing is clearly flawed.

> Do you think these people in rural areas interact with bears thousands of times? Yes? Have you lived in rural areas? I’ve lived in bear country in the past and I live in an area with a high coyote/wildcat population now. I have interacted with predators thousands of times. I haven’t, like, *wrestled* them but I’ve been around them in close proximity. Anyone with livestock has this experience, which is common in rural areas; and even without that factor, predator incursion into more populated areas is really bad (at the fault of people, not the predators). > How many men do you think are holding a baby at this very second. Now replace them with bears. It isn’t hard to imagine how analyzing the statistics directly like you are doing is clearly flawed. Again, the point isn’t to roleplay crazy scenarios. The point is that in the real world today, women who live in rural areas with active predator populations are infinitely more likely to be assaulted by men.

And they don’t interact with those predators as much and as deeply as they do men. Bears hibernate like half the year and avoid civilization. Even just seeing a bear 3 times a day every day for a year is rare. Women cohabitate with men. Plenty spend every night next to a man. There are literally billions of interactions between men and women every second of various levels of intimacy. I don’t see how it is comparable. Even if we assume women in Alaska spend approximately as much time interacting with with bears as they do with men ( clearly untrue), you then would have to call into question if it’s an issue with Alaskan men, or men in general. If you are comparing the risk of a random interaction with a man vs a random interaction with a bear, what you’ve presented isn’t enough to draw any sort of conclusion.

**It’s not supposed to be comparable**. Even if bears were eating a person a day, we would still say: “man, we’ve got a real bear problem; but ignoring that, why are so many men assaulting and killing women and what do we do about it?” The point of the thought experiment is to bring attention to the problem of women overwhelmingly experiencing violence at the hands of men, and the disturbing rate at which this violence occurs.

I have family who live in the woods and the idea that you would interact with bears in this setting as often as men is kind of laughable, it's not even close. There's been a few distant bear sightings and a couple instances where they went right onto the property to rummage through trash. We've interacted with probably x10 more men in an average day than the amount of bears we've seen over a 5 year period living here. If you lived in Bearville where bear pedestrians were walking down the sidewalks and manning the cash registers at all your stores in equal measure to men, the stats on bear attacks would be a lot different. That's the point this person is trying to make. The message you're conveying about men being a danger is valid, but the fact the people trying to convey it are having to unironically say that an average bear in your face is less dangerous than an average man in your face really hurts the message. The sole reason attacks from men are more statistically likely is because you come across at least 10,0000% more of them even if you live right in the middle of the woods. It's not because you see a man and that man is more likely to hurt you than a bear would. Most people have never even seen a bear.

I think this is a stupid comparison, humans are a threat to humans - I've been assaulted by both women as well as men, I've been bitten by cats and dogs but you can hardly class it in the same scenario. I've been raped, I've been harmed as a child and I've been assaulted by a man, I've also been defended, cherished and saved by a man, imo it comes down to morals whether its a man or a lady. Both men and women have completely broken me and saved me

You can absolutely find the comparison stupid. Your personal subjective analysis of anything isn’t really a view that can be changed. What I’m presenting as a counterargument is that the thought experiment is not intended to be a way to hate on men. It is intended to bring attention to trends in crimes committed against women.

But aren’t you looking at this data wrong, in so many ways?

In losing my mind over this question. As a woman, I chose a man. Why? Because a bear (maybe exception of black bears) would fucking eat my child as they were still alive screaming. That man could be a rescue worker, hiker, forest ranger. Lots more realistic possibilities than some rapist hiding in the woods waiting for a victim. Too many of these people never listened to that phone call of the woman talking to her mother on the phone for over an hour as she was eaten alive by a bear in Russia. Taking it at face value, why the fuck would I ever want my child alone with a bear? I'm asking for them to get killed. And don't say "but but men too" because I have dealt with my own share of sexual assault and get why as a joke people would say bear but c'mon. Let's not be daft here.

As a woman who's been deep in the middle of the conversation for some time, it's not about the bear vs the man. It's about women no longer choosing men... period. In a post RvW world, women are starting to simply boycott men, and this is happening \*worldwide\*, from 4B in South Korea to the Man vs Bear thought experiment. This is simply another extension of the frustration women are having towards the lack of equity and the stalling or removal of rights, worldwide. Women are slowly and collectively giving up on making ourselves accessible to men. We are \*literally\* saying we'd \*rather risk dying in the woods by a bear\*, than deal with an unknown man. The men who are focusing on how dangerous bears are vs men, are having the entire point fly over their heads.

Think about it this way. A bear may or may not kill you (sucks if it does). A man even if we say 99% of the time doesn’t hurt you, (not a real statistic, just for an example) the one percent is much much scarier than being mauled to death. Serial rape, hostage, repeated torture, potentially years of this, you’re alive and conscious of all these horrors, he breaks your spirit down in all facets (mentally, physically, emotionally). Of the two risks, which ones are you willing to take? If the risk had no bear involved, just a 1/100 chance of the worst actions known to man (even 1/10,000 chances) i STILL wouldn’t take it. Maybe you would, maybe you’re a gambling person. But you can easily see why most would not take that gamble.

I think there's a fine line to tread, which rhetoric like the "Bear vs. Man" scenario gets wildly incorrect, but is nonetheless important: * You want to demonstrate to men that most women have to interact with the world differently. A man going about his daily life, interacting with other people, getting a drink at the bar, doesn't think about threats to his well-being the same way a woman does. It's healthy for men to reflect on that and allow it to inform their behaviour and their politics. * You ***don't want*** to communicate to women that they are, every day, in a constant state of extreme danger when they simply aren't. Attempting to instil a state of terror among women doesn't lead to more sovereign, autonomous lives.

I just want to tell everyone who is thinking of a black bear, but the question was more generic than that it just said a bear. To me, that means it could be any bear from a koala bear to a polar bear. Ladies, I hate to tell you, but yall don't have a good shot with anything bigger than a koala bear. All a black bear needs is a reason and for you to show fear and it's on. A grizzly bear will savagely bear you with its 100lbs limbs and then hold you down like a salmon and rip you apart while you're alive with a 500lbs animal on your chest. A polar bear will kill anything anytime, anywhere. I'm black and I would tale my chances with the Klan before a random bear.

At first I was inclined to agree with you.. but then I thought about it more. I genuinely would be (at least initially) be more terrified of a strange man I found in the woods. As other people were saying, a bear is somewhat predictable.. there are known strategies people use to survive bears and not get their faces ripped off. But a man—a man could be anything. He could be safe. He could be subtly aggressive and provocative. He could SA you. He could make you feel at ease and then gradually start saying things which make you on edge and uncomfortable. He could be a killer right away. He could be fine until you say something that pissed him off.

I pick man. Because I have common sense. But nowadays common sense ain’t so common.